Thursday, June 6, 2013

Joseph D’Aleo Fails Meteorology 101 on WUWT

...and outs himself as a conspiracy theorist

Anthony Watts has posted an article on WUWT by Joseph D’Aleo, CCM, Weatherbell Analytics who thinks that carbon dioxide doesn't obey the laws of physics. For someone who's supposed to be a trained meteorologist he displays a remarkable level of ignorance. His article is a real gish gallop with no supporting evidence or links to data to support his erroneous claims.

Do all the commenters shriek loudly:- "Proof, Joe, where's your proof. Where are the links to your assertions?" like they do when someone says "the globe is warming?" Nope, not at all. Finally a couple of people protest mildly and then Steven Mosher comes in and has a go at him. I'll just pick a couple of Joseph's "wrongs".

Joseph writes:1) Warming not ‘global’. It is shown in satellite data to be northern hemisphere only (2) It is now not warming. Warming (global mean and northern hemisphere) stopped in the 1990s

You're wrong, Joe. Warming is still happening and warming is global. It didn't stop in the 1990s. The northern hemisphere warming isn't offset by cooling in the southern hemisphere. Both hemispheres are warming. It's warming more in the northern hemisphere overall just as expected, because that's where there is more land (the southern hemisphere is mostly ocean), plus there is Arctic amplification. (Click chart to enlarge.)

(3) Models suggest atmosphere should warm 20% faster than surface but surface warming was 33% faster during the time satellites and surface observations used. This suggests GHG theory wrong, and surface temperature contaminated.

No. Joe, you can't get rid of the physical properties of a greenhouse gas quite as easily as that. You've considered one possibility, which would mean the tried and tested physical properties of greenhouse gases are 'wrong' (too silly for words) and/or that all the different data sets except one are wrong and/or that all the thermometers around the world stopped working all at the same time.

I can't be bothered with the rest. It's mostly a mixture of paranoid conspiracy theorising and strawmen. Making up stuff that some "alarmist" is supposed to have said so he can say - "ha, didn't happen". Typical dumb denier ranting. There's no evidence Joseph has read any of the science. He could have got all his talking points from one of those paranoid conspiracy theory denier sites like Jo Nova's.

Even some of the WUWT deniers find it over the top. What's fun is that they are bending over backwards to try to explain that while they agree with Joseph that the greenhouse gas theory is wrong that doesn't mean they think that the greenhouse effect isn't real. Something to do with not wanting to be banned as "slayers" I expect.

I had all his points down and was going to go through them one by one, but it became apparent that his main argument against the physics is that the thousands of scientists throughout all the world plus all the world's weather bureaus are secretly plotting together, presumably to take over the world or some such nonsense.

He's probably not got the gift of evolution-denier Duane Gish, but you've gotta give him points for trying.

The atmosphere is nearly all convective to 60,000 feet MSL (near continual winds and wind shear except at night; and with lightning and related phenomena which continually blends the atmosphere); and occasionally up to 100,000 feet MSL. Meaning supposed greenhouse gases can not act as greenhouse gases. Or they are only gases, can not create greenhouse effect inearths atmosphere. Above 100,000 feet MSL, the amount of atmosphere is measured in parts per million or less. Or there is not enough atmosphere above 100,000 feet MSL to create a greenhouse effect. You pick on Mr. D'Aleo without having the facts yourselves. Good luck. You will need it.email: tdwelander@gmail.com

Hi Terry. Welcome to HotWhopper. I'm normally fairly tolerant of people's odd beliefs however, because in this case they conflict with the subject of this blog (science), I figure you've lost your way. We are not tolerant of anti-science evangelists here. Try a climate conspiracy blog where you are more likely to find like minds.

Well, this is pretty representative; there's that first couple of sentences, where we get a traditional long-winded non-sequitur. And then there's ' [a]bove 100,000 feet MSL, the amount of atmosphere is measured in parts per million or less', which rather begs the question 'of what?' Followed by 'so what?'

What was that meme? Rule one of Dunning Kruger Club - you do not know you are in Dunning Kruger Club.

BBD, please cite your source or sources for such foolishness:"The GHE operates by elevating the altitude of effective emission at the so called "top of the atmosphere" (TOA). TOA is the non sequitur. There is no top of the atmosphere. The atmosphere continually changes with reduced density going upward; much less so above 100,000 feet MSL. The atmosphere is still present in minute parts per million quantities or less up to and beyond several hundred miles above earth. Try reading and using some weather or meteorology terms; the most knowledgeable people on this subject. Creating your own terms will only get you scorn. In parts per million or less, supposed greenhouse gases can not provide or create a greenhouse effect; it takes lots of supposed greenhouse gas molecules, lots of them, to create a greenhouse effect; and still air is also a necessity; does not exist anywhere in the atmosphere. Your denial of these plain sense weather and atmospheric facts is very foolish. I look forward to your sources. If you have any, they are likely as non scientific as your erroneous explanations. The best advice here appears to be: grow up, get a good scientific education and a job. No trained person I know will fall for your gobble de goop.

Sou and Kevin,I went to every location at this blog; nothing credible.

TOA appears to be an invention of the latest non scientistssometime in the last 20 years. Does match up to what the actualconditions that are in the upper atmosphere; that of continual andvariable movement across vertical miles. Your supposed TOA isconstantly changing; why there is not one; no such thing as an atmospheric TOA.

The answer is a thermodynamic balance and/or accounting of allheat correlating to temperature changes which includes all volcaniceruptions and related and all plasma inputs to Earth's magnetic and electric fields; put together with in coming and out going solar energy in watts and or btu; so everyone with an advanced math education can see where the heat is going and coming from.

I urge you take at least one thermodynamics course; preferably two and at least two geologic courses on volcano outputs, and related; and a physics course on the sun's plasma contacting Earth's magnetic and electric fields.

Then we may have some kind of answer instead of the crap you have been spreading.

I do not use the word crap lightly. Mr Chenoski, a follower of Mr. D'Aleo reminded me of the Feynman/Einstein definition of the actual or the real Scientific Method: only raw data is real. People routinely write models which purport to explain the raw data but never completely do so. I would also quote the Standford experimentalist, Dr. Michael McKubrie, on cold or catalytic fusion; it is not that we do not have enough models to follow; there are too many models explaining the same condition or situation; and only one can be right or has not yet been thought of. All of your sources appear to be from highly questionable, probably erroneous models; when only raw data explained covering all relevant factors, I repeat all relevant factors have been consideredis what is real or actual. Why your sources may have some validity; but most certainly appear to be crap.

Only raw data is real?!!! That is about the stupidest statement I have ever seen. Something tells me you have never in your life collected raw data. Feynman would rip you to shreds were he still around.

Getting good, stable, reliable, and valid raw data is very hard. That why professionals spend so much of their time working on ways and means to collect and collate it.

If only raw data was real, we'd be using the microwave emissions numbers directly from the AMSU satellites instead of the reinterpretated, adjusted, averaged, and anomalized obviously-invented "temperature" nonsense from Roy Spenser and John Christy at UAH. Right?

I mean, their over-manipulated made-up and infilled numbers are clearly useless, and about as far from "raw data" as it is possible to get.

What Terry D Welander is saying is that NASA, the US National Weather Service and the American Meteorological Society are "crap".

(What's left? Or what sources are there that don't have similar findings? Any secondary/tertiary/quaternary and so on sources that deniers fabricate or use are derived from primary sources like the NWS.

I only left his comment because it demonstrates even better what weirdness abounds on the internet. Plus it's got replies.

What is also obvious is that Terry wouldn't know what to do with satellite readings if he ever managed to locate them. He shows no evidence of ever using raw data of any kind, not raw temperature data from the surface let alone "brightness" readings from satellites.)

It really is true you know: in a bizarre twist on (Groucho)Marxism, Terry is an all-but-card-carrying member of The Dunning Kruger Club, and, as a consequence, he is incapable of understanding that he's a member of The Dunning Kruger Club

It's a given that the DK crowd will eventually invoke Richard Feynman, although it's pretty obvious that few have bothered to crack open, much less comprehend, The Feynman Lectures On Physics. In the 1950s, before the DK effect was identified, Martin Gardner referred to it as "peevish ignorance" which "betrays no understanding of the views opposed, although the authors have had every opportunity to avail themselves of such knowledge".

Terry D Welander, before you start telling Sou to follow any courses only tangentially relevant to climate science, maybe you could start with actually following a course on climate science. David Archer organizes a good online course, and it goes slow enough for someone with just an engineering background (like you) to understand the basic concepts. That is, if you even *want* to learn the basics. So far your insistence on someone following a course on plasma physics to understand climate is...well...just weird. Volcanism can be nice to understand some past climate changes, but for the present it is just a very minor issue.

Instead of commenting as "Anonymous", please comment using "Name/URL" and your name, initials or pseudonym or whatever. You can leave the "URL" box blank. This isn't mandatory. You can also sign in using your Google ID, Wordpress ID etc as indicated. NOTE: Some Wordpress users are having trouble signing in. If that's you, try signing in using Name/URL. Details here.

When you read older articles on a desktop or notebook, you may find the sidebar moves down the page, instead of being on the side. That can happen with some older articles if your browser is not the full width of your computer screen. I am not planning to check every previous post, so if you come across something particularly annoying, send me an email and I'll fix it. Or you can add your thoughts to this feedback article.

When moderation shows as ON, there may be a short or occasionally longer delay before comments appear. When moderation is OFF, comments will appear as soon as they are posted.

All you need to know about WUWT

WUWT insider Willis Eschenbach tells you all you need to know about Anthony Watts and his blog, WattsUpWithThat (WUWT). As part of his scathing commentary, Wondering Willis accuses Anthony Watts of being clueless about the blog articles he posts. To paraphrase:

Even if Anthony had a year to analyze and dissect each piece...(he couldn't tell if it would)... stand the harsh light of public exposure.

Definition of Denier (Oxford): A person who denies something, especially someone who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence.
‘a prominent denier of global warming’
‘a climate change denier’

Alternative definition: A former French coin, equal to one twelfth of a Sou, which was withdrawn in the 19th century. Oxford. (The denier has since resurfaced with reduced value.)